Hey, a California community college? Is this like they one you teach at Jeremy?

And Jeremy, for about the 15 millionth farkin time: A court is activist if it strikes down a law by pulling what the Constitution means out of its ass. If it strikes down a law (or a lawsuit) using the plain meaning of the constitution, that's doing its job.

As long as he was not using campus computers and campus email to send out what ever opinion he has, I agree with the decision

Why should that matter?

My campus email is my personal email. Contrary to what I might think, I am not the spokesman for the UW; my opinion is not the official Campus opinion. If I say something that stimulates interesting debate (as if), then the University should be happy.

Harsh Pencil Dick said..."Hey, a California community college? Is this like they one you teach at Jeremy?"

For the 15 millionth farkin time...other than Pogo and few other morons on this site, no one I have ever known in my life would understand what the fuck you're talking about. I-DO-NOT-TEACH-AT A-COMMUNITY-COLLEGE...dumb-ass.

And..."And Jeremy, for about the 15 millionth farkin time: A court is activist if it strikes down a law by pulling what the Constitution means out of its ass."

That's bullshit, and you know it.

All any court has to do is make decision or reverse a decision...that you and the rest of the local tea baggers don't agree with...and they fall into "you're own special category" of "activist courts."

When the Supreme Court stepped into the 2000 election...did YOU think that was a form of "activism?"

Madison Man, my understanding from various emails is that we are not to use our UW emails for political purpose for for soliciting funds etc, but yes of course we can post witty comments on various blogs.

It's not how wrong you are or how horrible your liberal ideas are on their merits. You use awful, insulting terminology with a lot of people on this board and indulge in a lot of gratuitous profanity. There are people here who make solid arguments and stand their ground without suggesting their rhetorical opponents indulge in obscure sexual acts.

"Did anyone ever tell him WHY the district was sponsoring a racist event?"

Isn't it interesting how that key question was lost in all the lawsuits?

Look ... the left has a strategy. It is to sue people to get them to squelch their own speech. They are using the courts and the cost of defending against a lawsuit as their preferred method of censoring speech.

They know they will lose. Doesn't matter.

The message gets sent: If you speak truth to their power, it will cost you. You will be sued. They will use their friends the judges in the courts to intimidate you.

They don't care if they lose, since they face no sanctions for filing these frivolous lawsuits and the courts deliberately won't impose sanctions - since the courts are in on the entire scam.

It will cost you thousands in lawyer fees to secure your free speech rights and they know it. It's part of their strategy.

Many leftist judges want people on the right to be sued frivolously, even if they'll rule against the lefty plaintiffs, and so they deliberately don't impose sanctions against individuals suing people for merely exercising well-known Constitutional rights.

The article says, "His colleagues claimed he sent three e-mails to all employees in the school district touting European whites as superior."

But the article quotes nothing that supports this assertion. The closest thing Kehowski wrote was, "Today's Columbus Day! It's time to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization."

Aren't we, as the benefactors of Western Civilization, living in a society founded on its principles, permitted to tout the superiority of them? Is this the same as saying "whites are superior"? There are millions of non-whites who have adopted the principles of Western Civilization in organizing their societies, so I don't see how this is racist unless anything that praises anything associated with whites is racist.

"The article says: His colleagues claimed he sent three e-mails to all employees in the school district touting European whites as superior. But the article quotes nothing that supports this assertion."

That's the whole point!

They filed a frivolous lawsuit, knowing in advance they could never prove what they were alleging.

Doesn't matter.

The strategy is to tie people's lives up. To make the expend money on lawyers. To fuck with them.

That's the beauty of this strategy ... it doesn't require any factual basis. It's very costly to defend yourself even against the most frivilous of claims. The left knows this. But they have an entire bar association that will work pro bono for the left side ... so it costs nothing really to file lawsuits to chill speech.

That's the beauty of their strategy!

You can't defeat these people. They own the judges. The lawyers are all donating to Democrats. They're all members of the same association. It's their club!

If you think you have free speech rights in this country, you had better fucking think again.

You don't. Unless you have a shit load of cash to fight for your rights in court.

And their unions negotiate themselves exorbitant salaries (2x what people in the private sector make) so that they can pay kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions to the politicians to ensure a steady supply of more raises and pension bumps.

Our entire society has been corrupted by allowing members of the government to donate to our politicians.

@ New "Hussain" Ham...most lawyers are conservative Republicans, except for a small number that practice in the civil justice arena and try to collect damages money from careless and arrogant conservative Republicans and their businesses when they have seriously harmed innocent people and lied about it and laughed. The legal system primarily protects wealthy men, real estate wealthy by inheritance Banks, Railroads, Public Utilities and friends of the politically powerful...only then do a few attorneys also work for a traditional Democrat client base. Most of us are like CPAs with a license to draft legal documents.

But that's beside the point anyway. Even if they were Republicans, I'd still want to cut them off.

They're the government. They are members of the Judicial branch. It is horribly corrupted to have members of the Judicial branch donating re-election funds to members of the Executive branch of our government.

No government employee should be allowed to donate money to any government official. It's that simple. Otherwise, it's a recipe for corruption (after all, it's frequently members of the Executive branch which decide the pay of members of the Judiciary branch).

We can either eliminate this practice, or it really doesn't matter if America survives frankly. I don't want to be a member of this society as long as government officials are the primary donators to other government officials.

The game is rigged at that point. And we're at that point.

(BTW: The corruption will continue. Neither the Judicial Branch, nor the Executive, has the proper incentives to change. That will only come with Revolution.)

"The article says, "His colleagues claimed he sent three e-mails to all employees in the school district touting European whites as superior."

But the article quotes nothing that supports this assertion. The closest thing Kehowski wrote was, "Today's Columbus Day! It's time to acknowledge and celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization.""

AZ has been in the news a lot lately. The press has been excoriating us, but the people aren't, so overall, it's a win. I bet the same thing happens with this case, if they decide to make anything of it.

Glendale Community College is claiming that he is being fired for violating the district's electronic communications policy, which prohibits using district e-mail for private or personal matters.

Fair enough, if it were a private or personal matter. If he were sending out emails touting his side business or exchanging raunchy emails with a hooker in Hong Kong then they might have a point.

However, this email propounded a political viewpoint. Whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant. It is hard to argue that it is either private or personal. It is instead an academic argument. What this amounts to is an attack on academic freedom. Academia is supposed to be a place in which ideas can be exchanged freely, debated and responded to (there's a thought-- why didn't they just send out an email rebutting his?).

As I said, when I wrote it I hadn't met him. I have since but during a presentation on using tangent lines to solve cubic equations.

I'm sure I don't agree at all with him politically but in this case Ann is exactly right.